Has Thailand Made Progress? Thaksin Taunts

[dr_Pat_Pong]

//General Reminder//

The topic title reads "Has Thailand Made Progress?"

Please stay on that topic

Thanks for your cooperation

UG's flame trashed.

[Ulysses G.]

As has been said many times before, comparing Thaksin to Hitler or Charles Manson is absurd.

He is a politician in South East Asia who has done some good things and some bad things, but, other than his popularity, he is not much different from most of his colleagues.

The world is not black and white. It is grey.

[Artisi]

Hopefully in the near future it will be " Thaksin, who? ".

[slapout]

I agree that there is a Grey area in some decisions made by people/politicians/businessmen, medical groups, etc, but I apply that Grey area scenario to decisions which may affect the good of vast numbers vs the subsequent not so good affect on a minority. We seen this in condemnation of personal property, so as projects beneficial to the general public are undertaken, experimental vaccines/medicines etc. Theft, corruption, Grey acts for personal gain for ones self or cohorts, etc as practiced by many of the mentioned personalities do not fit what I perceive as Grey areas of rational decision making and should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. To attempt to justify the illegal acts of one individual, group or people in a position of trust/responsibility would lead me to question the rational thinking of those who make such a comparison.

[rixalex]

As has been said many times before, comparing Thaksin to Hitler or Charles Manson is absurd.

It wasn't a comparison it was an analogy. Are you aware of the difference?

[mca]

I'd say an analogy is extremely close to a synonym for a comparison.

[Ulysses G.]

Sure, I'll give you an example: You make a comparison between Thaksin and The Leader of the Nazi Party who killed millions of innocent people for their religious beliefs and sexuality, but after it backfires on you, you claim it was an analogy, so you don't look quite as foolish.

[animatic]

Horse crap. None of his points begin to approach the corruption of controlling the world heroin trade, therefore Thaksin was far from "the worst". You are the one pointing a finger in another direction.

Thailand never "controlled a good piece of the worldwide heroin trade".

Since Afghanistan blew it far into the weeds by quantity.

More was grown in Northern Burma and shipped through there.

And much went from Laos to Viet Nam too.

Some went through Thailand, and some was grown there too certainly.

If the sense is that puyais get a cut of what their underlings do,

then they profited from it, that doesn't say they necessarily directed it,

but more probably didn't stop it often either.

It was just one of many black market networks, but you use the word "Allegedly",

and that pretty much sums it up.

Trying to White Wash Thaksin because a few guys in the past ran heroin...

well as a PM who actually was worse?

Name names.

Not once has it been said a PM ran heroin.

Not even specifically a General after a coup, actually ran heroin.

This is hyperbole.

Plus and Ulysses are both right on the points they have made. Very objective.

Your comments on the heroin trade are very naive. Of course it is all "alleged" No names no pack drill. The unseen Thailand.

So then, can you name the names of PMs who controlled the heroin trade?

No of course not, And the inferences will always be to the opposite pole from the commentors

political champions of the moment.

it's easy to cast rumors as facts, because they MIGHT make sense.

But that still is only hyperbole.

Compared to Afganistan Thailand was a bit player.

It was just one transit route from the Golden Triangle which overlapped partly into Thailand.

But far from the only section, and far from Thailand being the predominant conduit.

Thailand could be bought on individual levels easy enough, so was a logical conduit.

But Burma was totally controlled by it's corrupt military even more.

Yes of course they kept it quiet.

Yes of course all underlings pay tribute on profits to those above.

But his argument was that 'THAI PM'S RAN HEROIN BUSINESSES...'

So that is hyperbole.

Lets also not forget the human trafficking trade...

So are the PM's of recent memory also human traffickers?

Just because corruption is endemic and many levels doesn't make

all the leaders complicit in all acts of those below.

Unless those acts were carried out or mis-managed from direct orders like Tak bai.

In that case, and others, the buck should stop at the top.

Edited September 27, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

As has been said many times before, comparing Thaksin to Hitler or Charles Manson is absurd.

It wasn't a comparison it was an analogy. Are you aware of the difference?

Apparently not.

Comparing Hitler of 1931 to Thaksin 2006 is not absurd.

Comparing Hitler 1943-44 and Thaksin at any time is absurd.

Just because we know how far off the tracks Adolph went 'in the end' doesn't mean

the facts and circumstances of his rise are now invalid for comparisons to other situations.

Just because one pundit says 'all arguments are lost' just for invoking the name,

doesn't make THAT so. That is a spurious argument.

This is like saying after you invoke Attilla The Hun the argument is lost.

And lets also consider the Nazi name being a contraction of Nationalism and Socialist.

BOTH are current factors in in play in Thailand in a big way.

Just because we know how far bad the Nazi's did go in 1938 onward,

doesn't mean them in their earlier stages are not valid comparisons with

potentially similar movements, or parallel movements potentially ready to

coalesce into a more malignant whole.

This is like saying Joe McCarthy can't be compared to Jorge Haider or other demagogues.

Edited September 27, 2009 by animatic

[Ulysses G.]

Only one problem, even the most ignorant amongst us realizes that your purpose for using Hitler's name with Thaksin’s had nothing to do with any particular dates, revered SpinMiester.

[Thai at Heart]

I have to agree that invoking just about Thaksin let alone anyone's name in terms of being similar to Hitler is wrong and belittles the true evil of a man whilst demonizing one, beyond the pale of reasonable truth and facts.

Splitting it down to certain dates is extremely fatuous.

One cannot look at history and make an apple an orange no matter how hard one tries IMHO.

[Ulysses G.]

Some folks sure do try though.

[Plus]

Speaking of shades of gray - there were plenty of other things Hitler has done apart from slaughtering millions of people. Can we compare those things to Thaksin's?

For the past couple of pages we haven't been talking about any comparisons in particular, arguing if that would be appropriate at all.

Golden Triangle mess was cleared thanks to great numbers of Royal projects to provide alternative means of livelihood, btw.

Thaksin's corruption has ceased to be the main issue when he started pitching Thais against each other and called for a revolution. At that point people didn't even think about his stolen money, they were taken aback by how much damage he was ready to inflict on their country, damage that cannot be calculated in baht terms.

[animatic]

It is equally fatuous to look at history as only the end of a set of actions as a single whole,

and not also analyze the individual actions over time that ENDED with the final scenario.

If you can NOT look at the forest AND the trees,

then you can ever prevent an unwanted forest from growing.

If we can not look at HOW Hitler became Hitler the Uber-Despot,

AND differentiate the different stages of this malign progress,

then we can never know when the next potential one might be arriving.

Edited September 27, 2009 by animatic

[Ulysses G.]

Speaking of shades of gray - there were plenty of other things Hitler has done apart from slaughtering millions of people. Can we compare those things to Thaksin's?

Only if you use an analogy!

[Ulysses G.]

It is equally fatuous to look at history as only the end of a set of actions as a whole,

and not also analyze the individual actions over time that ENDED with the final scenario.

If you can NOT look at the forest AND the trees,

then you can ever prevent an unwanted forest from growing.

If we can not look at HOW Hitler became Hitler the Uber-Despot,

AND differentiate the different stages of this malign progress,

then we can never know when the next potential one might be arriving.

Ever hear about beating a dead horse?

[animatic]

It is equally fatuous to look at history as only the end of a set of actions as a whole,

and not also analyze the individual actions over time that ENDED with the final scenario.

If you can NOT look at the forest AND the trees,

then you can ever prevent an unwanted forest from growing.

If we can not look at HOW Hitler became Hitler the Uber-Despot,

AND differentiate the different stages of this malign progress,

then we can never know when the next potential one might be arriving.

Ever hear about beating a dead horse?

Would that be the one you rode in on, just to have it handy?

I can see the whip raised regularly here by many, so why single me out?

Oh, yeah I present a logic for someone else's using the H name.

Argument ad hominum etc.

[Plus]

Hitler healed Germans wounded pride after th WWI, Thaksin rebuild wounded pride after 1997 crisis.

Hitler united the nation around strong, dedicated leadership making huge personal efforts to look after welfare of all Germans, Thaksin was the first leader ever to care about common people, he gave them hope and love.

Hitler didn't tolerate any dissent in his quest for unity, Thaksin publicly ostracized anyone with opposing views, not afraid to take even on the UN.

Hitler rallied the country against a common enemy - Jews, who were blamed for everything under the sun. Thaksin chose drug dealers as a target, and there were treated as animals who had to be put down, all backed up by religious explanations and he even got an inspiring song to go with it.

Nazi symbols and paraphernalia are a legend, but TRT logos were were everywhere, too, and TRT successors are still using the same color scheme and their "new" logos are just redrawing of the same trademark.

Hitler marginalized traditional Vons, Thaksin's war against the elites is a red staple food nowadays.

There were plenty of differences, too, but what I'm talking about are signs of budding dictatorships, and they are pretty much the same all over the world and throughout history. Hitler didn't invent them, Thaksin didn't invent them, Stalin didn't invent them. Can we compare Thaksin to Stalin? If it makes you more comfortable.

[insert your favorite name here] - ... introduced a great, powerful, uniting ideology and declared himself a servant of that dream, just like everybody else in the country. Great sacrifices were made to fulfill this dream and eventually it led to ruin.

[Ulysses G.]

Stinky Dead Horse With Flies

[rixalex]

You make a comparison between Thaksin and The Leader of the Nazi Party

When have i ever mentioned the Leader of the Nazi Party?

you claim it was an analogy, so you don't look quite as foolish.

I don't claim it was an analogy. It was.

Here it is again.

Spending all the time you do on Thaivisa arguing that Thaksin was a "better" corrupt leader of Thailand than some others, would be as pointless an activity to me as arguing that Manson was a "better" serial killer than Bundy.

Are you getting the hang of it? Let's try another one:

Spending all the time you do on Thaivisa arguing that Thaksin was a "better" corrupt leader of Thailand than some others, would be as pointless an activity to me as arguing that the Spice Girls were a "better" pop group than Take That.

For the slow of understanding, I am not, i repeat not, comparing Thaksin to the Spice Girls.

[Publicus]

Not at matter of trust at all, rather comprehension IMO the original text was clear, and if not then the explanatory response should be crystal clear.

It was very clear to me.

Publicus for some reason, got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Yeh, I'd concede it wasn't my best post or day and I guess the less said about it the better (altho I'm making another post about it). I've wiped my nose clean and have cleared the red from my eyes. I also went to the market the other day and bought a pound of crow.

[Jingthing]

From a purely practical point of view, there is no political gain to be had comparing ANYBODY to Hitler. It just makes you look silly, like the current "teabaggers" in America depicting Obama as Hitler.

[Samuian]

It is equally fatuous to look at history as only the end of a set of actions as a whole,

and not also analyze the individual actions over time that ENDED with the final scenario.

If you can NOT look at the forest AND the trees,

then you can ever prevent an unwanted forest from growing.

If we can not look at HOW Hitler became Hitler the Uber-Despot,

AND differentiate the different stages of this malign progress,

then we can never know when the next potential one might be arriving.

Ever hear about beating a dead horse?

Would that be the one you rode in on, just to have it handy?

I can see the whip raised regularly here by many, so why single me out?

Oh, yeah I present a logic for someone else's using the H name.

Argument ad hominum etc.

For some the any reference to Mr.Schickelhuber and the act of drawing a comparision

to any living being causes obviously some sort of resistance - the question is why?

Isn't it just a comparison?

As Saddam Hussein's Propaganda i.e. "Information" Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf or

Saddam himself has been object to comparisons to "infamous" people from the 3rd Reich.

Once a Thaifriend of mine compared Chatichai with Mr.Schickelhuber... to use this for

"Argumentum ad Hominem"...tells Volumes.

Or may some feel offended using this Name/Character for comparison?

Thailand will certainly make progress without Mr.T.!

And if he stops his propaganda machine it might be even faster and nobody will

talk anymore about a reconcilliation - as he is the one who works hard on the great divide!

Happy days!

[caf]

Hopefully in the near future it will be " Thaksin, who? ".

Maybe

For the moment, he is mentioned every day on Thai television. And also on Thaivisa whether the topic is about Thaksin or not. Why so much anti-Thaksin coverage. What are people scared of.

btw I am no fan of Thaksin and I could debate against him. We must ask why he is being kept in the limelight.

[steveromagnino]

Ignoring the previous pages of comparisons to Hitler and getting back to a few key points:

Heroin trade

As any reliable source will tell you, the heroin supply from Thailand did not change significantly between the periods 1997-2001 and 2002-2005; a fair comparison of the Dems coalition and the TRT coalition prior to buying up the other parties and becoming a single monolithe party. So Ulyesses, it may be an interesting subject, but has no relevance to this question; has progress been made since effectively nothing changed.

'Thailand has one of the world's most effective illicit drug crop control programs. United States analysts estimate that Thailand's opium production in the 2000 growing season remained at a maximum of 6 metric tons. Cultivation remained under 1,000 hectares for the second year in a row, although there was a slight increase to 890 hectares. Continuing trends established in previous years, opium farmers are cultivating smaller, more isolated fields and engaging in multiple cropping to avoid eradication.

Thailand remains a major drug transit country; a significant amount of heroin transits Thailand on its way to the United States. Throughout 2000, Thailand continued its long tradition of cooperation with the United States and the international community in anti-drug programs. With U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration support, the Royal Thai Police (RTP) established the fourth in a series of specially trained drug law enforcement units to target major trafficking groups. Despite treatment, epidemiology of substance abuse, and demand reduction programs, the epidemic of methamphetamine abuse grew, especially among the young. The methamphetamine problem underscored the need for cost-effective community-based models of addiction treatment and additional abuse-prevention training for both public and private sector health professionals.'

Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.

So as you can see Thailand does not have a major issue of heroin production. This is from 2001.

Or perhaps you meant that politicians that even the USA considers to be blacklisted drug traders, namely the Wongwan family clan?

Internally, it has a signiciantly issue of internal usage, and the so called war on drugs (brought on, say some cynics, by his own children's usage) never really solved much, otherwise the country really would be drug free. even today.

So Steve,

Not wanting to quote your entire message which is a pretty good precis of what happened; the question is "has Thailand made any progress from the first day of the coup too today?"

I think largely no. The losses in political stability and global perception because of the coup, followed by the continuing protests of yellows and reds probably mean Thailand is a "net" loser over this period since the coup. It is interesting to consider that if Thaksin was in power during this global recession (right now), people might be starting to see through his veneer and his popularity might be plummeting.

I would have to say yes and no. I would say Thailand has stagnated since the initially promising reforms of the late 90s; since then we've ridden a cash cow non renuable tourism resource that has been heavily drained; we've relied on doing what we do well leveraged to a global boom and we haven't built long term sustainable advantage in the industries where we have to compete in future - services, manufacturing, new sectors, even agriculture in some places.

We have acheived growth in certain sectors such as automotive manufacture, but of course, that has to be expected given the families involved with auto manufacture also in politics, and the amount of or should I say, lack of tax and free reign they enjoy with regards to oversight is not entirely without flaws. We have also enjoyed major growth in other areas, such as advertising, media, etc without real government attention; almost despite it.

But the core issues that existed pre TRT and pre coup remain - lack of a free press (actually that one we did have in early 2000s, TRT dismantled it), poor education, poor transparency and oversight, average to poor infrastructure. I have no issue with the will or desires of the people doing the work; major issues with the only part of the ecnoomy that the govt should be involved with; namely setting the rules and creating the play book and rules to play with a start where everyone has a shot to win.

As for the point of early petrol station closures. This was widely considered to be done for 3 reasons.

- reduce cost of business for PTT at which time TRT politicians had become major shareholders and owners as they went through the dance of buying up the assets up and down the value chain of the petrochemicals business in Thailand

- the deisel subsidy issue

- CP wanted to increase traffic to their 7-11 markets, which are more embedded in the community; it wasn't only petrol stations that shut early, it was also hypermarkets

Let's bear in mind that the deisel subsidy cost the govt 4% of their total state spending in 2004; so it isn't like it was a small amount. Imagine how that might have affected a petrol company like PTT where admittedly, those outside the TRT inner circle enjoyed a long and luxurious 85 seconds to buy into a state owned enterprise sold off at 35b per share which was already over 100b within less than 2 years, but even so, if deisel sales suffered....well it just wouldn't have been right. All just a guess of course.

Much like many of the inner workings of TRT, those who consulted or helped make decisions could see quite clearly that govt policy and regulations were simply a way to increase personal wealth, since after all, no free press meant there was effectively no oversight other than making sure you didn't stick it too hard to someone else.

[Scott]

Thailand is not Germany and Thaksin is not Hitler, either by analogy or comparison. This thread is about Thailand and the progress it has/hasn't made. Let's keep it on topic. Otherwise, posts will be deleted and warnings given.

[Artisi]

Hopefully in the near future it will be " Thaksin, who? ".

Maybe

For the moment, he is mentioned every day on Thai television. And also on Thaivisa whether the topic is about Thaksin or not. Why so much anti-Thaksin coverage. What are people scared of.

btw I am no fan of Thaksin and I could debate against him. We must ask why he is being kept in the limelight.

Money - that's what keeps him in the limelight, not intelligence, tact, sophistication, just plain money and graft paid to the "right" (wrong) people.

[Thai at Heart]

So Steve,

Its all square going into the last round of many that may be repeated for a while.

Regards,

TAH

[wayfarer108]

Or perhaps you meant that politicians that even the USA considers to be blacklisted drug traders, namely the Wongwan family clan?

Internally, it has a signiciantly issue of internal usage, and the so called war on drugs (brought on, say some cynics, by his own children's usage) never really solved much, otherwise the country really would be drug free. even today.

So Steve,

Not wanting to quote your entire message which is a pretty good precis of what happened; the question is "has Thailand made any progress from the first day of the coup too today?"

I think largely no. The losses in political stability and global perception because of the coup, followed by the continuing protests of yellows and reds probably mean Thailand is a "net" loser over this period since the coup. It is interesting to consider that if Thaksin was in power during this global recession (right now), people might be starting to see through his veneer and his popularity might be plummeting.

I would have to say yes and no. I would say Thailand has stagnated since the initially promising reforms of the late 90s; since then we've ridden a cash cow non renuable tourism resource that has been heavily drained; we've relied on doing what we do well leveraged to a global boom and we haven't built long term sustainable advantage in the industries where we have to compete in future - services, manufacturing, new sectors, even agriculture in some places.

We have acheived growth in certain sectors such as automotive manufacture, but of course, that has to be expected given the families involved with auto manufacture also in politics, and the amount of or should I say, lack of tax and free reign they enjoy with regards to oversight is not entirely without flaws. We have also enjoyed major growth in other areas, such as advertising, media, etc without real government attention; almost despite it.

But the core issues that existed pre TRT and pre coup remain - lack of a free press (actually that one we did have in early 2000s, TRT dismantled it), poor education, poor transparency and oversight, average to poor infrastructure. I have no issue with the will or desires of the people doing the work; major issues with the only part of the ecnoomy that the govt should be involved with; namely setting the rules and creating the play book and rules to play with a start where everyone has a shot to win.

As for the point of early petrol station closures. This was widely considered to be done for 3 reasons.

- reduce cost of business for PTT at which time TRT politicians had become major shareholders and owners as they went through the dance of buying up the assets up and down the value chain of the petrochemicals business in Thailand

- the deisel subsidy issue

- CP wanted to increase traffic to their 7-11 markets, which are more embedded in the community; it wasn't only petrol stations that shut early, it was also hypermarkets

Let's bear in mind that the deisel subsidy cost the govt 4% of their total state spending in 2004; so it isn't like it was a small amount. Imagine how that might have affected a petrol company like PTT where admittedly, those outside the TRT inner circle enjoyed a long and luxurious 85 seconds to buy into a state owned enterprise sold off at 35b per share which was already over 100b within less than 2 years, but even so, if deisel sales suffered....well it just wouldn't have been right. All just a guess of course.

Much like many of the inner workings of TRT, those who consulted or helped make decisions could see quite clearly that govt policy and regulations were simply a way to increase personal wealth, since after all, no free press meant there was effectively no oversight other than making sure you didn't stick it too hard to someone else.

Well summarised.

Edited September 27, 2009 by wayfarer108

[steveromagnino]

So Steve,

Its all square going into the last round of many that may be repeated for a while.

Regards,

TAH

As a Frenchman once told me France has been a democracy for 300 years and it still gets idiots in power (his words not mine) and has a ton of issues with special interest groups such as the farmers holding the country to ransom; social unrest, etc etc.

Being a functioning democracy takes time.

So while it may seem 2 steps forward 2 steps back; any steps in any direction are better than having never walked anywhere; at least as long as there is some sense of history, and some learning from that, we learn that certain things work and certain things don't.

For instance, despite all this talk now about how good the 1997 constitution was, it didn't stop an elected govt from ignoring large chunks of it:

- Declaration of Accounts Showing Particulars of Assets and Liabilities (where he claimed ignorance and somehow got away with it - chpter X i think it was section 295 - any person who intentionally submits a false statement or conceals should step down and is banned for 5 years - everyone knows it was a false statement unless there really is a world's richest maid pagaent

- A Free Media: 'Transmission frequencies for radio or television broadcasting and radio telecommunication are national communication resources for public interest.

There shall be an independent regulatory body having the duty to distribute the frequencies under paragraph one and supervise radio or television broadcasting and telecommunication businesses as provided by law.' - the regulatory body was basically subverted and all channels of media moved within the control of the TRT PR machine except Matichon, Manager, Nation group although even Nation ended up somewhat controlled eventually; independents were sued into submission

- A torture, brutal act, unhumanity not permitted except for means of execution - seemed not to apply so much in the south or in the cases of adducting and killing lawyers. Or wars on drugs

- Section 107; politicians need a minimum of a Bachelors degree (several TRT politicians did not and had to forge documents)

- members of the HoR should not receive any special money or benefit from the state other than those given in the normal course of business

- actually allowing the NCCC to do their job as set out in the constitution

And ignoring the intent:

- an independent senate

- an independent judiciary

Always easy to paint the current constitution as a dog, but the one before it was not respected either! The prior constitution encouraged weak coalitions, and so the hope had been a stronger party system, less horse trading and independent regulators. Didn't work so well in the early 2000s as intended. No one will ever know whether another couple of years of civil unrest as we had late 2005 and the first 9 months of 2006 would have led to the TRT govt collapsing and then a step forward without needing a coup. We know that the coup and leaving Thaksin wandering around has led to where we are today.

So now we hope end up with a mix of the 2006 and the 1997 constitution and take another step forward. Worst case is we forgive everyone for their transgressions and end up with a step behind 1997 and the same thugs (which was always the intention of these constitutions, to get rid of the thugs and actually encourage decent people into power) in power - nice upstanding guys like Chalerm and his merry men, or some of the regional jao pors on either side of the house.

There are countries around the world that get by without a constitution and others that do fine without needing to argue endlessly about a document that, at least in Thailand, was not followed in concept or by letter anyhow.

Two steps forward, one step back.

We live and learn.

We hope.

Edited September 28, 2009 by steveromagnino